Print
Category: Front Page News Front Page News
Published: 20 August 2017 20 August 2017

By Mary Alice Murphy

At a special meeting of the New Mexico Central Arizona Project Entity on Wednesday, Aug. 16, 2017, public comment was moved to after new business, so that several entity members who had to leave for another meeting could hear presentations on the New Mexico Unit Phase II final report from engineering firm AECOM.

NM CAP Entity Executive Director Anthony Gutierrez gave the presentations, with backup from Paco Larson of AECOM, who was on the phone.

Gutierrez said the Phase II final report was on the www.nmawsa.org website. A direct link to results of the Task 13.1 and 13.2 scope of work can be also found on www.nmcapentity.org, as well as the AECOM update.

He said the update included an interim analysis on projects, including conveyance and on-farm storage in the Upper Gila and two projects on the San Francisco River. Twelve components are included in the AECOM Phase II draft update.

A site visit led to concept development, knowledge of land ownership and a discussion on diversion component options, including Obermeyer pneumatic gates, fixed crest weirs and Coanda screens.

Three options near the Upper Gila gage showed land ownership to Shelley/Smith, Jordan/Shelley and The Nature Conservancy. "One of The Nature Conservancy sites has additional protections."

"Each site is conceptual, but we did contact the land owners," Gutierrez said. "Martha Cooper joined us for The Nature Conservancy site, and we met with Jordan and with Smith. We discussed issues of push-up dams with the mayordomos. Three different sites could be three different types of diversion. Each site was analyzed according to its structure."

Gutierrez also noted that the Gila River splits at the upper end of the valley.

Entity Member Allen Campbell asked what the harvest rate for each structure is.

"I think the analysis used 150 cfs (cubic feet per second) as a starting point," Gutierrez replied.

Campbell said he has never seen a volume for what a diversion type is designed to divert. Gutierrez said he believes it comes in Phase IIB, but not in the one he was reporting on.

Gutierrez continued by talking about the San Francisco River diversion sites. "I had conversations with (members) (Howard) Hutchinson and (Bucky) Allred. We identified two potential sites as diversion sites, with potential for development and storage—the McKeen diversion location and the Pueblo Creek diversion location, moved slightly up river."

Allred said Keller Canyon is near the McKeen site.

Gutierrez noted that, below where Pueblo Creek comes in, sedimentation could be a possible problem. "Up canyon would be a better site."

He said the McKeen site has an existing diversion that could be potentially upgraded, with both diversions possibly going into No Name Canyon for storage.

Hutchinson said what is not included in the diagram is that one diversion above Pueblo Creek could lead through a gravity-feed pipeline into Weedy Canyon and a possible structure could be built between Weedy and Keller canyons.

"I want to differentiate between components and diversion and storage," Gutierrez said. "What we're doing now is to try to combine components in different ways. It goes into the same scenario of how the water can be utilized. It identifies two sites and identifies three different structures, giving sizes and elements of the structures. I hope everyone has had a chance to look them over. We'll come back next month to put together alternatives. The engineers will do an analysis of sensitivity, so we can move forward with a proposed action."

He said Keller Canyon storage could equal 1,062 acre-feet or water and Weedy Canyon, more than 1,800 acre-feet. Combined that makes almost 3,000 acre-feet. "It is the desire of those on the San Francisco River to meet their full allotment of 4,000."

Gutierrez said the costs include a 30 percent contingency. Costs for different options, which can be found in the Task document, as noted above, vary from just under $1.1 million to just under $6.8 million and would be able to utilize Arizona Water Settlements Act allocated water and decreed water.

He went into some detail on different options for different sites, but all can be read in the above two documents.

Another task, which also can be found by following the above links and downloading the documents, addresses on-farm pond storage OPS) and aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) elements.

Gutierrez said he met with several individuals who have existing ponds on their properties. "The OPS and ASR concepts are for a large infiltration site, but on our visit we discovered the site was farmed, which defeats the purpose. We identified some smaller sites. We talked to individuals who are receptive to expanding their sites and getting and taking water from them."

"People in the valley know we're not trying to ruin the environment or aesthetics," Gutierrez continued. "They know we're trying to improve the systems. They showed support. The next update includes all these sites."

The Phase IIB analysis update is what AECOM is doing right now.

He said at the TNC site, a siphon has been proposed to allow underground conveyance from the east side to the west side. "We have identified three ditch alignments and the conveyance would be included in NEPA. Both ditches on the east side are linked in the middle, which could offer a potential alternative."

He talked about Mogollon Creek. "We had several scenarios in Phase I. We didn't want to leave off Mogollon from the analysis. The scenario utilizes the existing roadway and conveyance to Wind Canyon and would be gravity fed. Below the 916 Ranch offers some conveyance into Wind Canyon."

As for the on-farm pond storage sites, the visit showed some areas are fallow or on the upper reach of irrigated areas. Conveyance could be done using Raney wells, allowing water to be injected into ditches. "The wells could be used for immediate watering, drip, flood or sprinkler irrigation. Yield analysis will be done on each type of diversion and on the on-farm pond storage, with conveyance back to the diversion site or to Wind Canyon."

Joe Runyan of the Gila Farm Ditch asked if a design had been done for more than one year's worth of water.

"The yield analyses will be the determinant of how much and when. The CUFA (Consumptive Use and Forbearance Agreement of the AWSA) is more of a determinant," Gutierrez replied.

"On-farm storage would sustain flows and reliability," Runyan said.

Gutierrez said irrigators were asked how much each could use and 2,500 acre-feet was the identified amount.

Larson (of AECOM) told Gutierrez that 3,000 acre-feet would be under consideration for how feasible it would be.

Gutierrez said AECOM hopes to have all the information by the second to last week of September. "We talked about a potential meeting on Sept. 25, so we have at least a week to mull over the information before we come back for our October meeting to make a decision."

Larson, who was on the phone, confirmed AECOM would have the yield, all of the screening and the recommended alternatives at the Sept. 25 meeting "for you to decide in October."

CAP Entity Attorney Pete Domenici Jr. asked if the yield analysis would look at yield using ditch capacity "or will it look at expanded ditches?"

Larson said the yield model would be based on water balance, "what we can take from the river and water balance in the ditches. The diversion can be scaled to match the yield and the ditches. The line item in the costs includes ditch improvement to accept yields, and scaled to meet yield." He indicated it would require future work to determine the size of yield and ditch capacity.

Domenici said he had asked why the improvements were costing so much for a maximum diversion of 3,000 acre-feet. "The estimated cost of this alternative (Table 2 conceptual cost of utilization of on-farm storage) includes capture, moving the water and storing it in a five-day period to get the full potential and in the quickest amount of time."

Vance Lee, representing Hidalgo County, asked why a five-day period.

"The five-day period relates back to the yield estimate," Larson said. "The yield model we are putting together will give us a better idea of the time period. For instance, you may be able to capture for a longer period at a lower flow rate. The different systems are scalable. Once we know the expected yield we can design the structures."

"Until we know the yield, we don't have enough information," Lee said. "Has there been any thought to all on-farm pond storage being full and if we were still able to divert into them according to the CUFA? How can we get water out of the ponds and to Virden?"

Gutierrez said part of the analysis was to provide water to downstream users.

The next agenda item addressed the recent request for proposal for engineering firm or firms.

"We did the scoring with five reviewers," Gutierrez said. "The results were consistent, with consensus on the results, so we didn't need to go into the interview stage. We chose two firms. The highest ranking was OCCAM Engineers, out of Albuquerque, which includes our local OCCAM office, and RJH Consultants out of Denver, in conjunction with Daniel B. Stephens and Associates, which many of us have worked with, including on the Gila Project. All the proposals were well qualified."

Lee moved to recommend approving OCCAM and RJH Consultants/Daniel B. Stephens to provide general engineering services and project management services to the NM CAP Entity. Recusing themselves from the voting were members B.J. Agnew, Esker Mayberry, Runyan and Billy Billings, who was serving as alternate for Gabriel Ramos, after he left to attend another meeting. It was approved.

Under new business, the regularly scheduled CAP Entity meeting would be Sept. 5, but the Interim Water and Natural Resources Legislative Committee would be meeting in Silver City, and members of the CAP Entity have been asked to present their updates. Entity Chairwoman Darr Shannon said she would be representing the CAP Entity at the hearing, as would Gutierrez. Also set to speak are Southwest New Mexico Council of Governments Executive Director Priscilla Lucero, Las Cruces Roman Catholic Diocese Bishop Oscar Cantú, and Grant County Commissioner Harry Browne.

"We want to be proactive in working to incorporate all stakeholders," Shannon said. "We are trying to make the project as feasible as possible to everyone."

Gutierrez noted that a possible quorum notice should be put into the local media outlets.

[Editor's Note: It has been published to the www.nmcapentity.org website, although the particulars of time and location have not yet been released by the committee.]

During public comment, Donna Stevens of the Upper Gila Watershed Alliance asked that the AECOM report be posted to the website.

[Editor's Note: The reports are posted with either the item or a link to the items on www.nmcapentity.org website.]

Stevens said she is aware the CAP Entity was formed to do a diversion. "The amended JPA is mission creep. The JPA allows not only the ability to negotiate with Freeport McMoRan, but also gives the Entity authority to export water to sell to the highest bidder. That is most assuredly not providing water to just a handful of irrigators in the Gila Valley and in Virden."

Gutierrez gave his executive director report.

"I would like to address the questions about Freeport," Gutierrez said. "We assume that Freeport could enter into an agreement with anybody to export its water. I look at it from the other side. We represent our members. We have been accused of the intent to sell our water to the highest bidder. That accusation has been since the beginning of this process. There has never been any mention at any public meeting about transferring water out of the region, except by opponents. We want aquifer recharge. We want to look at Freeport's infrastructure and what benefit it can provide to our region. Here are the people who have input on these decisions. They are representatives from the four counties, municipalities and irrigators.

"We've been trying to incorporate the public in a diversion," he continued. In site visits, in visits to the San Francisco River, to on-farm storage, we have tried to engage with landowners and users to get their point of view on what's needed and on the design for projects. Last week, I attended a yield workshop, along with Allen Campbell, members of the Interstate Stream Commission and Norm Gaume. We tried to develop consensus on assumptions that might be used re the CUFA and project design. We entertained questions and comments. I think everyone was satisfied with the results. Hopefully, we can finish the update in September, so we can go into the October meeting and make a decision."

Domenici said he would like "to re-emphasize the ability of this entity to enter into negotiations with Freeport. There are significant checks and balances on using New Mexico Unit Funds. The ISC has significant input and significant oversight over those expenditures."

"One of my concerns with Freeport is that Bill Evans Lake has so much potential for this region," he continued. "Downstream, we have the Virden irrigators, who have no storage. Bill Evans is immediately upriver from Virden, which is one significant constituent that could benefit. Other constituents to have immediate potential to use the water are users in Grant County and potentially in Luna County. No one is more capable of exploring these options than this board. Now you have two engineering firms, which both have demonstrated skills to fully explore the resource for this region."

He said the ISC would validate this effort, but is not in position to move it forward.

"We are in a unique position to slowly, cautiously explore this potential," Domenici said.

Lee commended Domenici for using the expertise of those using the water on the Gila and getting advice. "Where are we on the amended JPA?"

Gutierrez said he has eight approved ones in hand, and some irrigation ditches are waiting on meetings.

"All entities have to sign in order for it to happen," Lee said. "One can hold the others hostage."

On the issue of the next meeting, Shannon confirmed the Sept. 5 meeting is canceled and only the Sept. 25 special meeting, pending confirmation from other potential attendees, will be held in September at 9 a.m. at the Grant County Administration Center.